Trump legal team readies attack on Flynn’s credibility - Polidicks

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-legal-team-readies-attack-on-flynns-credibility/2017/12/27/bc601324-ea78-11e7-b698-91d4e35920a3_story.html?utm_term=.96047753d4e1[/url] [quote]President Trump’s legal team plans to cast former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn as a liar seeking to protect himself if he accuses the president or his senior aides of any wrongdoing, according to three people familiar with the strategy. The approach would mark a sharp break from Trump’s previously sympathetic posture toward Flynn, whom he called a “wonderful man” when Flynn was ousted from the White House in February. Earlier this month, the president did not rule out a possible pardon for Flynn, who is cooperating with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Attorneys for Trump and his top advisers have privately expressed confidence that Flynn does not have any evidence that could implicate the president or his White House team. But since Flynn’s cooperation agreement with prosecutors was made public earlier this month, the administration has been strategizing how to neutralize him in case the former national security adviser does make any claims.[/quote]

Lmao of fucking course

When in doubt, try deflection, some poor saps* might believe it. *his whole support base

And the most pathetic part of it all is that the cult of Trump will eagerly gobble it all up.

[quote]Attorneys for Trump and his top advisers have privately expressed confidence that Flynn does not have any evidence that could implicate the president or his White House team.[/quote] Would these be the same lawyers who assured Trump he wasn’t under criminal investigation, or the ones who leaked their own story to the Washington Post? What’s their next grand strategy? Threaten Mike Flynn over email?

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;53011483]And the most pathetic part of it all is that the cult of Trump will eagerly gobble it all up.[/QUOTE] It's unlikely, but this could be the breaking point of the trump base cognitive dissonance or doublethink or whatever. Also lol hit star instead of reply but it's fine since you're probably right.

[QUOTE=mcharest;53011559] What’s their next grand strategy? Threaten Mike Flynn over email? [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Marc Kasowitz, President Trump’s personal attorney on the Russia case] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1571338&p=52466389"]Watch your back, bitch.[/URL] [/QUOTE]

Hey, yet another admission that they have something to fear! Also, they'll literally be going back on their own word and that of the President. Funny, that might make it seem like Trump has less integrity than he [i]clearly[/i] does?

[I][B]DEFLECT DISTRACT DENY[/B][/I] This all but confirms that A: Flynn's not cooperating with Trump, B: Flynn knows something Trump would rather Mueller not know, C: Trump's legal team is as dumb as he is.

[QUOTE]“This man [Flynn] has served for many years, he’s a general,” Trump said told NBC News in May. “He’s a — in my opinion — a very good person.”[/QUOTE] What did he mean by this?

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;53011709]This "people familiar with" stuff is starting to annoy me, with "people familiar with [I]X[/I]'s thinking" being the worst. I can't recall seeing it this much before 2016. Does it mean "anonymous sources within the Trump legal team" or "lawyers that would use a similar strategy in such cases"?[/QUOTE] I don't know the answer to your question as to who the identity of the source is, but anonymous sources didn't appear out of nowhere as a journalistic concept when Trump declared his candidacy. Nothing has changed by any particular measure in that regard since Trump took office. I think that there is an argument to be made that since Trump took office there has been an increase in anonymous sources offering damaging stories to the press, but that is explainable by the Trump administration being one that a) is very harsh on leaks and seeks to punish identified perpetrators, and b) is such a scandal-ridden clusterfuck that it generates far more pushback and drama than average. The end result is an administration just oozing of gossip with an active hostility towards whistleblowing. It's the perfect recipe for creating lots to talk about without any incentive for being identified. But journalists are doing roughly the same job as always. They didn't invent the anonymous source culture out of nothing in the last 18 months.

Also, to expand on what elixwhitetail just said. Remember recently when Project Veritas decided to abuse the way anonymous stories work to smear someone with fake news, only to discover that journalists actually do their research and they got called out

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;53011709]This "people familiar with" stuff is starting to annoy me, with "people familiar with [I]X[/I]'s thinking" being the worst. I can't recall seeing it this much before 2016. Does it mean "anonymous sources within the Trump legal team" or "lawyers that would use a similar strategy in such cases"?[/QUOTE] It's people who knows the situation whether that's a colleague or an aide or whatever. The description necessarily has to be vague or else it wouldn't be very anonymous. In some cases it can even be the person themselves i.e. "a person familiar with Jared Kushner's thinking has confirmed that he is innocent and his dick is fucking huge"